[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [CAS Specification Subgroup] Getting Started
Hi, I am not sure whether I thoroughly understood all the points of the earlier UIMA designers or not. However, based on the white paper, and UIMA TC's recent discussion about 5.3 issues, I have some comments for section 5.1 persuant to the 6-point skeleton : 1. Goals of spec element. I think the goals of CAS spec have been already well-defined at the beginning of section 5.1. 2. Overall Critique of section. -Current spec meets the goal of interoperability thanks to Object model for CAS and XMI repsentation of CAS. -However, section 5.1.3 is still unclear. To me, the concept of annotation, sofa, and regional reference are still not sufficient. With the current concepts, UIMA-users are too freely to design their own artifact metadata, which may also cause a confusion. 4. Open issues. I think at first, we should make clear what "regional reference" means. On page 23, line 4, regional references are only mentioned with "e.g. offsets", which is unclear. (or did I miss the definition somewhere?) We should discuss more about: +Regional reference is the reference to a "continuous" or "discontinuous" region? (as Dave mentioned) If it is a continuous region then the current "Annotation" is just the first-level (or base) annotation concerning about multi-level annotation schemes. In my opinions, annotations are all regional referring and they are different in the way they refer. It can be directly-referring to continuous regions or indirect ones through other annotations. These "indirect" regional referring annotations express relations among annotations, for example, an "Protein-protein interaction"-event annotation relates 2 protein-annotations. +So, should we provide mechanisms to explicitly define the construction of higher-level annotations from base annotation? What are the difficulties of doing so? Is it possible and necessary or not? +About sofa, I think every annotation has its sofa. If we have higher-level annotations, there must be some constraints on their sofas. For example, the sofa of a high-level annotation must cover sofas of their subordinate annotations. I know the UIMA-specification might become more complicated if we take relations of annotations into account but it deserves. 5. Compliance points. I agree with 3 candidate compliant points. They are: - 5.1.2, compliance point: objects in CAS conform to type-system - 5.1.3, compliance point: "annotation model compliance" - 5.1.4, compliance point: standard XMI CAS Representation 3. Votable issues. - I think section 5.1.1, 5.1.2 are complete. They do not need any change I think. - Vote to achieve agreement on 3 compliance points 6. Action plan. -Discuss more about the design of "annotation model" and try to achieve the best solution (vote if necessary). Regards, NGAN Nguyen Eric Nyberg wrote: > Folks, > > This message is intended to initiate the discussion for the CAS > Specification subgroup of the UIMA T-C. The current membership of the > subgroup: > > Eric Nyberg (coordinator) > Thilo Goetz > Sofia Ananiadou > Nguyen Ngan > > Our report date is March 2 - at the end of next week. We are tasked with > reviewing section 5.1, "The CAS Specification", in the white paper, and > producing a 1-3 page report for presentation to the TC telecon on that date. > > As per the instructions from Dave, the report should cover the following > outline: > > 1. Goals of spec element. (What is it trying to achieve in terms of > interoperability?) > > 2. Overall Critique of section. High-level summary of findings. How > good/bad is it in meeting goals? What's the damage? Looks good, just > needs some wordsmithing, has some serious conceptual issues, etc. > > 3. "Votable" issues. Crisp decisions the TC should vote on required to > harden/complete spec element. > > 4. Open-Issues. Issues that need extended discussion to resolve > > 5. List of compliance points. What aspects of this spec element "can", > "must" be adhered to in order to be "compliant" > > 6. Action Plan. Very important -- List of tasks required to bring spec > element to completion. > > Given the time we have remaining, we should begin to gather input for > the report. It would be useful if each of the sub-group members could > complete their review of Section 5.1 and share their comments (pursuant > to points 1-6 above) with the list by Wednesday, February 28th. I will > take responsibility for merging the inputs into the draft report and > distributing it for comment. > > Thanks for your prompt participation, > > -ehn > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]